Dick Armey Makes Really Bad Analogy For Gun Control

While I was taking one of my Political Science classes that are required for my major, I found out that Dick Armey, Former House Majority Leader, was once a professor at the University of North Texas, which is where I currently am studying, and that he was my professor’s professor. That wasn’t important at all to what Dick Armey said recently. I just felt like sharing it.

So Armey went onto CNN recently with Soledad O’Brien to discuss Mitt Romney’s recent remarks on the Colorado shooting, saying that we need to change the culture we are in to help prevent massacres like those in Aurora in place of regulating guns. Armey said, “If in fact he had not been capable of acquiring the guns, he might just as well taken a car and driven it into a school bus.”

This is true. Even without the guns, Holmes did have explosives rigged in his apartment that could have done a lot of damage. Then Armey just goes off the rails and says, “You can’t focus on the object by which a destruction was committed — be it a hammer, a gun, a truck, a car. Focus on the aberrance in the individuals that do this.” Yes, you can, and you should.

He went on to say, “More people are killed in automobiles every year than they are guns. I don’t hear anybody talking about banning automobiles.” Besides the fact of this being untrue, there are regulations put onto cars and drivers, as O’Brien pointed out by telling Armey that there are laws that require seat-belt use and that people have a driver’s license, among many other laws and regulations, hence why we have an entire government department dedicated to motor vehicles.

After there are deaths that could have been prevented with a seat-belt, the government put in place regulations on cars and car owners that they must wear their seat-belts. Armey backed away from the failed metaphor and reverted to the old tactic of crying out the Second Amendment as a last ditch effort to save his argument and that they need to punish the perpetrator, not the tools they use. Again. Yes, they should.

If people started killing people with cars, whether on purpose or not, aside from the obvious focusing on why these kinds of deaths are happening, we would start putting more regulations on cars and car owners. There would be regulations for better driver’s education. More cops on the streets. Tougher enforcement of stricter driving laws. Etc.

None of that is done for guns though, which were designed to kill people. Everything else is regulated to save lives, but not guns, the thing that is meant to be a weapon. Guns are America’s sacred cow for some reason, even though they are a danger to public health and safety.

Current gun laws in America do nothing. They are not even noteworthy. Israel has some of the most guns in the world. It also has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, and it’s gun crimes are severely low. Japan on the other hand has virtually no guns, and it also has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, and it’s gun crimes are also severely low. For more on that, here is a story from NPR on gun control in those two countries (only listen to the first few minutes; I couldn’t get the gun story on its own).

Gun laws save lives. They prevent massacres like the ones in Aurora, Tuscon, Ft. Hood, Virginia Tech, etc. They may not prevent all, but countries like Israel and Japan show that they do indeed save lives. It is still the right of people to have guns, I am all for that, but there needs to be more oversight from the government on these things. It’s the people’s right to have guns, but that right ceases when it takes away or threatens the rights and lives of others, no different from religion.

Guns in Colorado Massacre Purchased Legally

Most people are probably aware of this by now, but a man by the name of James Holmes allegedly opened fire in a crowded movie theatre during the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises, the latest and final ‘Batman’ movie directed by Christopher Nolan, killing twelve people and injuring about fifty others with four guns, including an assault rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun, and two handguns. Holmes was captured outside the theatre and told police that he had booby-trapped his apartment, which police are currently dealing with.

This is obviously a tragedy, but people who are caught up in the hysteria are looking past something. The guns that Holmes allegedly used to caring out this heinous act were purchased legally. The same was the case for the Arizona shooting last January, including the extended clip that allowed for more people to be killed. All of these guns were given to men, who had passed background checks, and they were used to kill innocents.

Background checks are clearly not enough to stop these kinds of things. Regulations and outright bans have to be put in place to stop these things from occurring more and more in a nation that has some of the least restrictive and regulatory gun control laws in the industrialised world. Yes, they will not stop every tragedy, but they will certainly save many lives.

Quick tangent. A lot of people around the interwebs don’t like that Batman photo I used. I don’t know why. Batman is a character immersed in tragedy. Even if he isn’t real, he’s a symbol of hope for real people in dark times.

I digress.

It is suspected that Holmes also had extended clips for the weapons used in the theatre shooting, no one can confirm or deny that at this time, but even if he did not, why is it legal for people to carry weapons that are used by military forces around the world? Why is someone allowed to own an AR15 (which is what was used in the Colorado shooting), M16, AK47, or any military grade weapon? People do not need those kinds of things to defend themselves.

The sentiment amongst people who don’t like gun control laws is, “If more people were armed and allowed to carry weapons around, this would not have happened.” Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) asked during an interview with The Heritage Foundation why no one in the theatre had a gun to take down the shooter. A man in Arizona actually did have a gun on him during the shooting and almost shot other innocent people.

Someone else having a gun is not going to solve anything but have more bullets in the air causing more harm than good, even if they are licensed and fully trained to carry a concealed weapon, especially when the gunman in the Colorado shooting had military grade armour, including a ballistic vest and helmet, ensuring tactical superiority to anyone who may have had any kind of gun on them, which is mostly going to be a handgun of some kind and not something that can pierce armour. Even police officers who are trained to handle weapons on a daily basis and are trained to kill people with their weapons in high stress environments end up shooting and injuring or even killing innocent people all the time.

Why is it though that when a tragedy occurs, such as a plane crash or tainted food, people immediately call for government action and more oversight to prevent more of these things, but when it’s guns, no politician dare touch that American sacred cow?

President Obama, when he was not the president, used to be all in favour of stricter gun control laws, but he has yet to say nearly anything on it, other than “let’s discuss this” basically after the Arizona shooting, since taking the Oval Office. This also destroys the right-wing paranoia-driven propaganda and lie that Obama is out to take your guns.

Why has he said nothing of it? Why are people so afraid to go anywhere near it? The NRA? They are one of the most powerful lobbyist organisations in the US. Indeed, a valid concern. The constitutional right to bear arms as laid out in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights? That indeed is in there.

Well, the NRA is in decline (hopefully), so one day maybe we can have an open and honest discussion about gun control in America without being called commies or unamerican. As for the Second Amendment, I don’t believe the Founding Fathers intended for Americans to have their have cannons or warships when they wrote that. Nor do I think they meant people could possess weapons that can dispense rounds faster than Mitt Romney can contradict himself.

Even with the Second Amendment, that does not end the discussion. Just because something is in the Constitution does not make it right or better, such as the American Prohibition. Guns need to be regulated more. Guns do not make us safer. They do not make us feel safer. Personally, when I am around firearms or weapons of any sort, I feel very unsafe. Knowing that more people might be carrying guns would only exacerbate my fears and possibly the paranoia of others who are actually armed.

Gun control, contrary to popular belief, actually does decrease gun violence. Japan, who has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, also has some of the lowest homicide rates due to firearms in the world. The opposite is true of the United States with its very lax gun control laws. It has one of the highest death-tolls due to firearms in the world, only beaten by poverty-stricken African and Latin American countries.

As for the people who say it’s wrong to exploit this tragedy for political gains, just remember this. If it weren’t for the severe lacking of oversight from the government as to who can buy guns, which guns they can buy, and how they can modify those guns, this probably would not have happened. But no, we can’t point fingers and blame it on something. We can only look at this at face value. No politics or trying to figure out a solution to the problem at hand. Only sorrow and grief.

My heart really does go out to the people who lost loved ones. I may be a heartless bastard that exploits a massacre for political points, but… No, I think I’ll stop there.

On an atheist/secularist note.

That Texas representative I mentioned earlier, he also claimed, along with other outrageous statements, that the shooting was because we don’t fear and love God enough and because of the constant attacks, I’m assuming by the liberal media and those commie secularists, on Christianity and Christian values. Christian values, like stoning gays and killing six-million Jews.

As well, all day on the radio and television, people, including the president himself, said we should send our thoughts and prayers to those in Aurora who have been affected by this. Because that will definitely do something to help those affected. Let’s pray for these people instead of actually doing something about it, like, I don’t know, enacting gun control laws to prevent more of these tragedies.

Every disaster, “They’re in our prayers. I’m praying for those in [area affected]. Pray for them. Pray. Pray. Pray.” It really is just a way for people who feel like they are helpless to do anything can feel like they are still somehow contributing. Mental masturbation and nothing more.

More Green Than Red

There has been this quiz going around the internet called the “I Side With Quiz.” I have been seeing it go around social media sites for, as for as I have seen, a few weeks now, especially Facebook where I spend most of my time now on the interwebs. Friends of mine have been posting their results with who they sided with the most and how surprised, or not, they were with it. I decided to finally take the quiz for myself to see where I stood.

Basically, answer a bunch of questions, and the websites calculates which presidential candidate from the 2012 election you side with the most. It was actually quite enjoyable to take. The questions are set up with yes, no, and “choose your own stance.” Under that last one are different perspectives and stances from what might be alternatives to the dichotomy.

I liked this option, because some things are not so cut and dry. Some things I said yes or no to only on certain conditions or even went further than the yes or no, such as the question which asks if the federal government should regulate and monitor the internet more. There was the obvious no, but I wanted to see if there were more, and there was. I chose “No, and enact legislation preventing any level of government policing the internet.” Always check if you agree more with the other options.

Some of the “choose your own” were stances from the presidential candidates themselves. While taking the quiz I did not know this, but I suspected it when I noticed some of the answers seemed to be some of Ron Paul’s usual rhetoric. As well, you can rate how important the questions and issues are to you on a five point scale ranging from least important to most important.

The only thing I did not like was that they give you the option to answer more questions for certain sections (e.g. domestic policy, science, environment) if you click for a drop down; the button to do this is kind of inconspicuous, and I almost missed it.

Once I finished with all the questions, including the ones I almost missed, I found out that I sided most at 85% with the Green Party’s candidate Jill Stein. I have been a big fan of the Greens since I first discovered them, but I know that they, and pretty much any third party in America, don’t have much of a chance of winning in such a political climate that is dominated by Democrats and Republicans. Even if they did have a chance, that would actually be a bad thing, as liberals and progressives would obviously be divided between Democrats and Greens, letting Republicans win more elections.

Some of the candidates I had never even heard of before. Who the hell is Virgil Goode, who by the way I only sided with at a whopping 5%?

All in all, these are most of my results:

So apparently Ron Paul has it right on only about 33% of things.

There were some I didn’t include, such as Gary Johnson, the one running under the libertarian banner. I agreed with him 51% of the time. Mostly on immigration and domestic policy. Looking at some of what Johnson has said recently though, he seems to have some economically liberal stances as well.

However, as we can clearly see, Jill Stein and I agree on the vast majority of things with President Barack Obama trailing not far behind at 80%. Stewart Alexander is the socialist candidate, and I actually was expecting to side with him the most, as I am a socialist. At least, I think I am. Maybe I really am more green than red. That may be because some of the questions I did forget to check what the other options were and just answered yes or no. Always check!

Nonetheless, it was fun, and I recommend everyone take it. Even if you know who you are voting for (I do), just see how much you really agree with them. There might even be a lively discussion between friends about who really is the best candidate once you share your results.

Government Competition To Grow Economy?

Government control of all industry is communism. Government control of certain industries but government regulation of others is socialism (I personally adhere to this). Government control of little to no industries is capitalism. Instead of any of these where the government controls, or doesn’t, industries for the benefit of the people/consumer/worker/etc., what about the government being involved in these industries as a form of competition to spur growth and innovation?

Something similar to this was proposed with the public option, where those who could not afford private insurance could opt to have government subsidised health insurance. During the debate surrounding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare,” the public option was scrapped in place of an individual mandate that required all Americans to have a form or private insurance or face a penalty.

The argument made in favour of the individual mandate, which was proposed by Republicans in place of the public option (I cannot stress that enough), was that private insurers would not be able to compete with a form of insurance that was built to be non-profit. All, if not most, of their clients would go for cheaper healthcare and still get similar results.

So? What is so bad about that?

If Republicans and conservatives think that competition is good, would it not be best to have such harsh competition so that private health insurers have to cut the costs of their plans and improve benefits, thereby benefiting the consumer? Why not have government competition from the auto industry and computers and everything else in between? Government competition will make private industries have to constantly do better than their competition, spurring technological and economical growth and innovation.

Let’s say General Motors all of a sudden becomes Government Motors (some have actually called it that since the auto bailouts),  which is now basically a department of the federal government, and begins researching, designing (with tax-payer money), and eventually putting out cars that are cheap, extremely fuel-efficient (if not hybrids or electric), and built to last; all of which is not profit driven, similar to the public option. That would drive companies like Ford, Toyota, Honda, etc. to make better cars than GM.

The same can be said of any industry. Government starts making computers better than Apple or HP or anyone. Internet service which is faster and more reliable. Food which is organically and ethically grown. Medicine. Furniture. Television. Houses and apartments. Mortgages and loans. Whatever else is out there. This is not to make someone rich. This is to legitimately benefit the people who cannot afford certain things or have a hard time doing it.

These are just ideas that have sprung up from talking to people. What are your thoughts? Should the government get involved in certain industries, not to turn a profit, but to provide goods and services to the people in cost-effective ways so as to improve the quality of life for everyone, not just those who can afford it?

Determinism, Atheism, and Uncertainty

I used to believe in the idea of free will when I was a Christian (more specifically a Jehovah’s Witness). I believed that Jehovah God had given us the ability to choose our paths: if we wanted to be saved and pass God’s test to be rewarded with eternal life or turn our backs on Him and His son Jesus Christ and face the consequences of it. Do I want to be a career military man or a politician (both of which are forbidden in the Witness faith)? Do I want to marry her or leave her in hopes of finding someone else? Do I want to die from old age or should I take it into my own hands when I feel I am ready?

I also believed He had given us the ability to not only choose our paths, but to directly choose our individual and everyday actions. Do I want tea or pop for lunch (anyone who calls it soda gets banned)? Do I want to go to class or not? Do I want to take that route or another one which may be quicker?

This contradicted the idea of God having a “plan.” If God has a plan that was setup from day one do I really have a choice in the matter or am I just a puppet on a string being thrown around by the marionette of God? After much soul searching, (biblical) research, and uncertainty as to what I believed I eventually began believing that everything had a bigger purpose as was part of God’s plan for humanity.

I did not find it more fulfilling to believe this. I wanted to believe that I had control over my own fate, at least to some extent within God’s creation. This is one of the reason’s I began questioning God and Christianity. If God has a plan for us all where He knows the outcome for everyone on Earth, then can it really be called a test? One could call it theistic determinism or predestination. I just called it “God’s plan.”

When I finally became an atheist, I had scrapped God and the Bible, but what of the other philosophical and ethical questions that came with those things, such as free will vs. determinism (among other such examples)? I had scrapped my idea of theistic determinism/predestination, but I still did not know what I believed or where I stood on the question.

If someone were to ask me at that time if I were a libertarian (someone who believes in free will) or determinist, my response would be, “I don’t know. I’m still searching for answers on that question.” Even compatibilism, the idea that libertarianism and determinism can both be part of the answer, did not describe me. I simply did not know where I was or what I believed.

After more “soul” searching, such as watching YouTube videos and reading blogs and books about the debate, I decided I was a determinist. A secular form of determinism that does not rely upon God and His angels moving the heavens and cosmos, but the laws of physics. I latched onto the idea, not because of any lasting legacies to my theistic days, but because it made sense to me and I truly believed it was correct.

For the longest time I had called myself a determinist. I had encountered many people, theist and atheist alike, who disagreed with me and what I believed, and I had beaten their arguments into the dust for the longest time. They were easy objections to handle. Some easier than others.

It was not until very recently had some started asking questions and poking holes that I could not answer or refute. Even after finding many others and sources who agreed with me, such as Sam Harris’ new book Free Will, which I thought at the time had dealt a deathblow to the idea of free will and had justified myself in the things I could not respond to, some things kept me questioning if I really were right.

As it stands, I do not believe in what people call “free will.” Many people have called that term as ill defined as “god,” and I agreed even before this entire debacle.

I also do not believe in determinism. I think.

If people were to ask me right now at this very instance if I believed in libertarianism or determinism, my honest response would be, “I don’t know. I’m still searching for answers…again.” I don’t think I even believe in compatibilism. I just don’t know where I stand on this issue anymore.

Now does anyone have a problem with me saying that I don’t know what I believe when it comes to determinism or free will?

Then why do people have such a problem with people saying they don’t know when it comes to a god? If someone is asked, “Do you believe in God?” why does their answer have to be yes or no? Why can it not be that they just don’t know?

And before anyone says it, “I don’t know” does not automatically classify them as an atheist (nor a theist). “I don’t know” is not a lack of belief. It is neither a belief or a lack of one. Am I automatically classified as a libertarian since I do not believe in determinism (or vice versa)?

This graphic seems to epitomise the idea that agnostics don’t exist or that agnosticism is simply a qualifier to atheism and theism.

This false dichotomy of atheist vs. theist just does not work. The third choice can legitimately be, “I don’t know.” If “Do you believe God Exists?” is replaced with “Do you believe in free will or determinism (or even compatibilism)?” then why is it acceptable to say “I don’t know” in that instance?

That right there is called an agnostic. Not an agnostic atheist. An agnostic. Plain and simple. They do not claim to have a belief or a lack of belief. They don’t know what they believe. They are going through a transition, much like I am when it comes to determinism and free will. I do not latch onto either of them or their labels. Maybe one day I will be a determinist or a libertarian, but maybe not, and maybe agnostics will be either atheists or theists one day, but right now we are neither.

In an earlier post “The God Question,” I said that the question “Do you believe in God?” only allowed for the answers of yes or no. In case anyone was confused, I only said that because it does seem like this kind of a question only allows two answers. It does not. Just because it seems that way does not make it so, and this might be why many people have bought into the notion of a false dichotomy when it comes to a god and what people think of it, and this is why the question should instead be “What are your thoughts on a god?” This paradigm needs to shift.

As much as it seems like I defend agnostics, I would like to add that I find permanent agnosticism, whether or not one wants to use it as a qualifier to atheism, to be intellectually lazy. Saying that we will never know something is a cop out to avoid thinking about something and looking further into a certain subject. I am temporary, I think, in my search for answers when it comes to determinism and the like. I don’t know though, and that’s alright.

Girl Tortured By Parents Because “The Bible Says”

Two Georgia parents were released on bond on Thursday after being charged with multiple counts of false imprisonment and cruelty to a child for allegedly holding their fifteen-year-old daughter in a chicken coop and outhouse for several days at a time and electrocuting her with a remote shock collar made for dogs.

The girl, who is currently being held for protective custody by the Department of Family and Child Services, was being home-schooled by her adopted parents Samuel and Diana Franklin and was being punished for supposedly not finishing her schoolwork. Diana Franklin told a neighbour that she was “doing what the Bible says” by feeding the girl only bread and water for days on end, imprisoning her in an outhouse and chicken coop, and forcing her to wear a shock collar.

Children in America are denied life-saving medical treatments, beaten and murdered, and now being electrocuted and imprisoned by their parents, all in the name of their god and holy books. I seriously question the idea of freedom of religion because of these stories.

AFA Wants to Boycott Google

The American Family Association (AFA) has a reputation for being extremely anti-gay and boycotting businesses that tend to not agree with them and do something that is in anyway pro-gay. They boycotted Home Depot, Oreo cookies, JC Penny, the Girl Scouts, and many many more for various reasons that had to do with gay rights.

My favourite is the Oreo boycott. Now all food industries have to do is be pro-gay in some small way and these people will no longer be able to spread their hate. The AFA wasn’t satisfied though boycotting delicious snacks and the girls who sell them. No. Now they are wanting to boycott Google.

Google recently announced a new campaign called “Legalise Love,” showing support for gay rights and acceptance of LGBT people around the globe. During their radio show AFA Today, Buster Wilson, general manager of AFA’s radio network, described how much Google is a part of everyone’s daily lives, such as with Google Calendar and Gmail.

Wilson does not outright call for a boycott of Google, but he does explain how the AFA has boycotted others for the same thing, saying that a Google boycott will “be a hard one for a lot of us” and that it “will test the meat of our convictions,” which I guess is telling people to boycott them anyway.

Is it just me or does that sound a little sexual?

Speaking of a little sexual, if the AFA were to boycott Google, what would all of those sexually frustrated conservative Christians do without easy access to online porn? Go to Bing?! If Microsoft wasn’t pro-gay as well, it would still be a terrible idea.

Does the American Family Association really think that they are going to change Google’s mind? Really? I love how conservatives are constantly saying that the people should regulate industries (not in the way that social democrats and socialists would want, which would be better), but the voice of consumers should sway businesses to change their practices or the consumers will stop buying their products.

Again, groups like these have boycotted many major corporate industries for being pro-gay (liberals have boycotted others for being anti-gay too). Have any of them stopped? Some might have catered to a few demands or pulled an ad here or there, maybe, but as far as I’m aware no one big change has been made by any industry, nor have any gone out of business or had their profits severely threatened. Capitalism works though. The invisible hand of the free-market really works.

Here is the video from Right Wing Watch with Wilson’s excerpt on boycotting Google.

First Congressman To Have Gay Marriage

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) became the first sitting Congressman to enter into a same-sex marriage on Saturday with his partner James Ready.

Rep. Frank is known for his vocal support of gay rights and financial reform, as he was a key proponent in the Dodd-Frank bill that was signed by President Obama in 2010 and rejoiced when a federal appeals court in Boston ruled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which makes it so that the federal government does not recognise same-sex unions of any kind, unconstitutional.

The ceremony was attended by many important politicians, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Al Green (D-TX), Senatorial Candidate Elizabeth Warren, who is campaigning against Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, and was officiated by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick.

The press were not allowed to view the ceremony.

Maybe there is some hope for America. Maybe we can move forward to a better world. A more tolerant world. A more loving world. Maybe just some more hopeless optimism from a bleeding heart liberal who likes it when people can be happy and show their love for one another.

Republicans Want to Ban New Mosques

The Western Conservative Summit is in its third year running. They are funded by the Colorado Christian University’s Centennial Institute, and this year they invited Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders to speak to a crowd of over 1300 attendees, who is of the radical right wing party known as the Party for Freedom (Partij voor de Vrijheid – PVV). In a forty-five minute speech that received multiple standing ovations throughout, Wilders warned of the threat of Islam and the “Islamisation” of the United States “bit by bit by bit” in an attempt to implement Shariah Law in America like has been happening in Europe (apparently).

Geert Wilders might be remembered from the 2008 movie from Bill Maher Religulous, where Maher briefly interviews Wilders and never seems to challenge him for his seemingly outrageous comments about Islam, unlike most of the other people interviewed throughout the film. “Islam is, according to me, a violent religion, the Koran is a violent book, and Mohammed was a violent prophet,” Wilders told Maher.

No more violent or “totalitarian” than the Bible, but Maher never seemed to make that connection. To clear something up, Wilders is not a Christian, in case anyone was wondering, even though he was indeed invited to speak at an event funded by fundamentalist Christians. He claims to be an agnostic, but Maher and Wilders both seem to have a special distaste for Islam.

During the speech, Wilders said, “Your country is facing a stealth jihad, an Islamic attempt to introduce Sharia law bit by bit by bit.” Where have I heard “stealth jihad” from before? Oh yeah, atheist YouTuber Pat Condell, who claims to be a “liberal democrat,” yet seems to have a very heavy following of right wingers from the BNP (British Nationalist Party) and the EDL (English Defense League), one a nationalist political party the other basically a British version of the Tea Party that focuses mainly on “the existential threat to the United States of America posed by Islam,” as the man who introduced Wilders at the summit put it, or in the case of the EDL, the threat posed to the United Kingdom by Islam.

I love how paranoid people like Wilders, Condell, and others always call it a “stealth jihad.” Since there’s no evidence for it, that’s proof that the stealth jihad is underway. Seriously, point to one instance of anything close to Shariah Law being implemented in the United States anywhere. Please. The only thing I have seen is quite the opposite when the Oklahoma banned Shariah Law for no reason whatsoever other than xenophobia and overall bigotry. Luckily, a federal appeals court struck down the proposed state constitutional amendment very recently.

Getting back to the Western Conservative Summit. At one point, Wilders said, “We should forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in the West already.”

After Wilders was done speaking, Republican Colorado State Senator Kevin Grantham said in an interview, “It’s warranted in this country. We already see the beginnings of that movement here in a smaller fashion, but it’s the same thing as it was in Europe just within the last couple decades, and we see where Europe’s at right now. So the warning is very real, and we should take heed and watch where we’re heading in this country.”

He later said, “You know, we’d have to hear more on that, because, as he said, mosques are not churches like we would think of churches. They think of mosques more as a foothold into a society, as a foothold into a community, more in the cultural and in the nationalistic sense. Our churches — we don’t feel that way, they’re places of worship, and mosques are simply not that, and we need to take that into account when approving construction of those.”

No, mosques are not places of worship. They’re simply recruitment centres so radical Muslims can destroy America and have Shariah Law by brainwashing children into believing in their “totalitarian ideology striving for world dominance,” because conservatives and fundamentalist Christians are obviously not doing the same exact thing.

Banning the building of mosques and going after Shariah implementation is not new. There was the controversy a few years ago about the “Ground Zero Mosque,” where many people tried to ban the building of a community centre that had a mosque in it a few blocks away from the site of the World Trade Centre which was hit in the September 11th terrorist attacks, claiming that Muslims were trying to disgrace the people who died in those attack which were carried out by Al-Qaeda, the Muslim terrorist organisation.

Claims initially were that a mosque was being built on Ground Zero (hence the name), that it was being funded by radical Muslims, that those radical Muslims were going to use it to recruit more radical terrorists, etc., and this is why we should ignore the First Amendment of the Constitution that Christians and conservatives point to everyday to defend the hateful things they say and do. Obviously, these were all completely false and fabricated in order to push a bigoted and fear-mongering agenda.

Former Republican Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich was a very vocal supporter of the Oklahoma ban, saying, “We should have a federal law that says under no circumstances in any jurisdiction in the United States will Sharia [Law] be used in any court to apply to any judgment made about American law.” Fellow former candidate Herman Cain said during the primary in an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace that local communities should have the right to ban the building of mosques in their towns, because “the people in the community know best” and because the “Constitution guarantees separation of church and state.” Yes, the irony should be seeping through the screen right now.

This is not something out of the far right wing where only immensely insane and bigoted people like Geert Wilders believe this. This is contemporary Republican and conservative rhetoric and platforms in the United States and other Western nations. I guess though we could call contemporary Republican and conservative rhetoric immensely insane and bigoted.

How Liberals Celebrate Independence

It’s the fourth of July, the day delegates from the American colonies 236 years ago got together and declared independence from the mother country of Great Britain. Today is a day of hot dogs, American-themed hats and other apparel, fireworks, and, of course, conservatives bashing liberals for not being xenophobic, homophobic, and pro-war enough, among other things.

On Twitter there has been a trendy topic going around #HowLiberalsCelebrateIndependence. It is exactly what you would expect, conservatives saying we are anti-freedom and anti-America, because we don’t agree with their hatred of others. I’m going to share with you some of my personal favourites.

Let’s start off with this piece of conservative religious garbage since most people reading this are probably liberals and/or atheists.

I personally don’t celebrate Christmas, because I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness. I know the true origins of the holiday from Pagan rituals and then corporatism. There are many atheists who do celebrate Christmas, because it is not about Jesus and God and how God (who is also Jesus… but is also a separate… but combined part of him… who is still two people… and then there’s that holy ghost guy… what?) raped a twelve-year-old girl to impregnate her with himself and then how she gave birth to God(‘s son). The holiday is about spending time with your family. As well, spending a ridiculous amount of money on things you don’t need and probably don’t even want.

Are you saying we don’t understand the history behind Independence Day, because that would be most conservatives on the contrary, or the concept of independence itself? I’m going to assume you mean the latter, because some other tweets we will get to later had similar remarks. We don’t understand independence, because why? Because we believe people should have the right to a job and a home and food? Because we believe people shouldn’t be unemployed, homeless, and starving because they “didn’t work hard enough”? Yeah, screw the poor. They don’t deserve our assistance, because they screwed up, even though most people that were laid off over the past few years were because of an economic recession which was not their faults.

Speaking of having a right to a productive life. Yes, we don’t understand independence, because we want people to have a life where they don’t have to worry about where their next meal is coming from or if they can afford to keep a roof over their head that isn’t made of cardboard and old newspapers.

So all liberals are dependent upon the government? They’re just a bunch of welfare queens scamming the system. People should work for their money. Like the trophy wives and their children who never worked a day in their lives and just mooched off of their rich husbands. They sure worked hard for their money. They deserve every penny of it and should have their taxes cut while we’re at it, since they are the job creators.

Yes, independence is a bad word to us, because we want everyone to be dependent upon the government so that they can have a house and a job and an education and a future where they feel fulfilled, even if their wallets may not be. We’ve been found out!

Conservatives use Medicaid, Social Security, police, firefighters, teachers, roads, libraries, and everything else that liberals do, they just complain about it while they’re doing it. Liberals are grateful enough that they live in a country that can provide these things to its people. If anyone is hypocrites, it’s conservatives.

Disenfranchising minorities and the poor from voting, that’s racist. Purging voter rolls, the vast majority of which are Hispanics, that’s racist. Creating laws so that cops can racially profile, that’s racist. Trying to ban abortion, that’s sexist. Trying to ban contraception, that’s sexist. Banning gay marriage, that’s homophobic. Discriminating against gays in the workplace and trying to ban them from adopting, that’s homophobic. Using the very social programmes they say are bad, that’s hypocritical. When liberals call conservatives racist, sexist, homophobic, hypocritical bigots, it’s because they are.

Now we move into the “liberals are un-American” section.

We hate America so much we now wish it hadn’t even been born. Liberals wanted to abort America, even though the Declaration of Independence was created because of liberal thought, but let’s not let facts get in the way. We still want to abort America. A very late-term abortion, since we are psychopaths who love abortions, especially late term abortions so that all the godless atheists can have more food, and want more people to get abortions, mostly white people so that the white race will end, since we also love Hispanics and blacks over white people too, especially if they are illegal immigrants who come to take jobs that the vast majority of Americans won’t take. However, we don’t want to abort any gay babies, but since being gay is entirely a choice and not something that is decided upon via genetics and biology, we will just have some babies and turn them all gay by having already gay men molest young boys to make them gay, and then America will no longer exist, since gays can’t reproduce. That’s what we want for America. That’s what all liberals want. That’s our Final Solution!

Well then… I think I may have gone a little too far there. Just maybe.

I wonder if there are actual conservatives in America who think something like that. I was being hyperbolic, but I truly want to know if someone really believes something close to what I said. I know some people believe certain aspects of it and that’s where I got most of those parts to put them together, but I wonder if someone believes all of that. I’m not sure if I would be more surprised or disappointed if there really was one person who truly did.

And now we support terrorists. Remember folks, the guy who first trained and armed those “freedom fighters” was Reagan.

Let me get this straight though. Because we believe Guantanamo Bay is a violation of human rights and that President Bush’s “You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists” is a false dichotomy meant to divide people, we watch Michael Moore films that honour terrorists who killed innocent people. You know how conservatives celebrate independence? Watching a tribute film to the guy who killed that abortion doctor in Kansas.

This one just doesn’t make any sense. I honestly don’t know if he’s implying that all liberals are Mexicans or that all liberals support illegal immigration because we love Mexico so much and hate America or some other nonsense like that.

We want to burn the Constitution, and apparently replace it with the South African one, while roasting marshmallows, while at the same time “attacking conservatives who want to keep America FREE & EXCEPTIONAL,” because we want to destroy the country we hate so much.

American Exceptionalism: believing America is the greatest country in the world while being the country that is 37th in healthcare, 49th in life expectancy, 7th in literacy, 22nd in science, 27th in mathematics, 178th in infant mortality, 3rd in median household income, and the largest military budget which is more than the next 26 countries combined. But we are the most free, having the largest prison population in the world.

God bless America.